 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Mayette v. Froeb, HHBCV054006433S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice case, defendant was entitled under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-260(f) to reasonable sums for the time spent by his expert in preparing to testify, but not for preparation time incurred in connection with a continuance defendant himself sought and not for a witness who never actually testified as an expert.
|
|||||
| Munson v. Yates, FA044000907S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Husband and wife agreed on most issues in their dissolution of marriage proceeding, however, the trial court was required to make rulings on who would keep the family Kayaks, whether the husband could have overnight visits with the parties child before relocating to a closer location, and whether the wife had to maintain life insurance.
|
|||||
| Ouellette v. Brook Hollow Health Care Ctr., CV065002865S,,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an affidavit was sufficient to show that the attorney for a decedent's fiduciary conducted a good faith inquiry into the validity of his cause of action, and to give the health care center adequate notice of the basis of the claim for medical malpractice, it comported with the requirements of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a.
|
|||||
| Peloso v. Walgreen E. Co., CV065002136S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to dismiss plaintiffs' action against defendants alleging pharmaceutical negligence and other causes of action was denied, because plaintiffs' amended complaint contained an opinion of a similar health care provider indicating that a pharmacist's substitution of drugs was a mistake, which satisfied Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a.
|
|||||
| Ratcliffe v. Ratcliffe, FA960060710S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TOLLAND, AT ROCKVILLE, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though Connecticut was no longer a child's home state, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46b-115r, 46b-115q, the father had not engaged in unjustifiable conduct and Connecticut was not an inconvenient forum; therefore, the criteria in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115k permitted Connecticut to maintain jurisdiction over the father's custody action.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. Aparo, CV05500212,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was granted in favor of one of two drivers in a personal injury action filed by a pedestrian; the pedestrian failed to produce any evidence that it was the driver's vehicle that struck the pedestrian or that the driver was at fault in the intersection accident between involving the driver's vehicle and that of the second driver.
|
|||||
| Royal Indem. Co. v. Terra Firma, Inc., X04CV054005063S,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MIDDLESEX, COMPLEX LITIGATION DOCKET, AT MIDDLETOWN, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the matters sought to be disclosed were covered by the attorney-client and work product privileges, a stay pending resolution of the appeal was entered.
|
|||||
| State v. Fontaine, MV060142863,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA 21 AT NORWICH, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the charge against him of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a; State could not prove its case because he was operating a moped pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-1(51) and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-286(e)(2) rather than a motor vehicle.
|
|||||
| State v. Nelson, CR050220383A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress statements that defendant made to a detective at a police station concerning a home invasion and robbery in which defendant was allegedly involved; State sustained burden of showing it gave him Miranda warnings, and that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.
|
|||||
| State v. Nelson, CR050220383A,
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN AT NEW BRITAIN, February 16, 2007, Decided , February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the reviewing court held there was a substantial factual basis on which the issuing judge could conclude that probable cause existed that the items sought under the search warrant would be found in the vehicle, as there was, inter alia, witness testimony linking the vehicle to a robbery and kidnapping, the motion to suppress was denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
